Environmental Policy Challenges

UN Member States started negotiations in March 2022 on a new global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. More than two and a half years later, this past week's summit in Busan was supposed to be when the treaty would be finalised. But it's not to be. According to Politico, the oil-rich plastic-producing nations blocked any caps on plastic production, which halted the treaty train in Busan. Multilateral agreements are complex and slow, which means forward-looking nations should move ahead and implement policies that reduce production and consumption of plastics along the whole value chain. Implementing a charge on consumers for single-use plastics has been highly effective in many countries. In Singapore, supermarket operators reported a 70% to 80% decrease in the carrier bags used since the mandatory 5c charge was introduced in July 2023. There are two other policies that the SG government should consider. First, mandate the use of recycled resin for plastic products sold locally, similar to the EU legislation that requires 25% recycled plastic by 2025 and 30% by 2030 for PET bottles. This creates a steady market demand for circularity. Second, provide authoritative science-based advice on the types of carrier bags and food packaging that are less environmentally harmful in SG. This would dispel misconceptions and clarify debates (such as whether paper is better than plastic bags). Context is important because we burn most of our waste and there's little or no composting done. In 2016, the National Environment Agency commissioned the National University of Singapore to conduct a lifecycle assessment (LCA) of the environmental impacts of different types of packaging. A useful factsheet was published in 2018 (https://lnkd.in/gDucbemt). It's timely to do a follow up LCA and publicise the findings. To do things right, we first need to know for sure what are the right things. #tackleplasticpollution #lifecycleassessment

Circular Economy Roadmap and Action Plan in Indonesia (2025-2045) from Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas Republic of Indonesia This document serves as a strategic reference for stakeholders in driving Indonesia’s transition from a linear economy to a circular one. The Circular Economy Action Plan spans a 20-year implementation period (2025–2045), focusing on five priority sectors - food and beverages, retail (with an emphasis on plastic packaging), textiles, construction, and electronics - which together represent nearly one-third of Indonesia's GDP. The roadmap outlines various strategies grounded in the 9R framework: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover. These principles apply across the entire value chain, from production, distribution, and consumption, to the end-of-life phase of products.

Could some circularity policies go against competitiveness and environment?🤔 Ten years after the first EU circular economy roadmap, we face an uncomfortable truth: Europe's circularity rate has stagnated and recycling capacity in key sectors is declining. The paradox is that this isn't happening despite our policies. It's happening because of them. Take PET plastic. We set ambitious recycled content targets in the Single-Use Plastics Directive to drive investment in recycling infrastructure. The result? Approximately 1 million tonnes of recycling capacity lost or never developed. Why? Because we designed mandates that can be met with cheaper imported recyclate rather than European post-consumer waste. European recyclers can't compete. Facilities close. Collected plastic goes to incineration. Bad for competitiveness, bad for the environment. This forces us to confront what we're actually trying to achieve: - Are we maximizing global circularity metrics—even when that undermines European recycling industries, exports jobs, and results in incinerating perfectly recyclable collected waste? - Or is circularity supposed to be at the core of our industrial policy, creating resilient local value chains and aligning economic with environmental goals? Current policy suggests we've chosen the former while claiming the latter. I understand the legal constraints. WTO rules create real limitations. But when France announces it will implement proximity principles for recycled content in 2026, it shows member states are filling the void left by EU-level creativity. We found WTO-compatible solutions for CBAM, for critical raw materials, for countless other challenges. Why not for circularity? The US Inflation Reduction Act and China's Five-Year Plans show what happens when industrial policy is backed by state apparatus. The EU has detailed regulations but minimal financial commitment and little integration with trade, state aid, or procurement policy. The main problem is that we regulate circularity while continuing to subsidise the linear economy. Unless the EU changes the economic incentives, the market today favours linear over circular products. After ten years, we need honesty about trade-offs between supporting European industry vs. providing cheap inputs, local resilience vs. global efficiency, ambition vs. WTO compliance and real commitment for circularity. If circularity is truly core to EU industrial policy we must design policies that actually build European market for circularity. The current path—ambitious targets, cheap imports, minimal investment—is failing both competitiveness and the environment. What are your ideas on how to fix this? I have elaborated on potential ways to address this challenge in a substack article: https://lnkd.in/eiZs_sT7 #CircularEconomy #EUPolicy #Recycling #Sustainability #IndustrialPolicy #GreenDeal

Glad to announce release of our new FAO’s review of the international and regional policy landscape for the management of plastics used in agriculture, timely synthesis of governance gaps and practical recommendations for managing agricultural plastics across their full life cycle. We map existing international and regional instruments, highlight the absence of time‑bound targets and lifecycle monitoring for agricultural plastics, and set out practical policy options from labelling and waste‑flow tracking to EPR and risk assessment standards that can strengthen sectoral governance. This evidence base is directly relevant to negotiations on the global plastics treaty: the report shows how a sectoral approach (and the Voluntary Code of Conduct on plastics in agriculture) could be used to ensure agricultural plastics are explicitly covered in treaty commitments, technical annexes, and national implementation plans. As delegates and negotiators work through #INC sessions, I encourage negotiators to draw on these recommendations to: 1) include agricultural plastics in the treaty’s lifecycle scope; 2) require/encourage traceability, labelling and EPR for agricultural products; and 3) embed support for capacity building and science‑based risk assessment for low‑income countries. Read the full paper here and consider how VCoC elements can be referenced in treaty text and implementation guidance: https://lnkd.in/dFyZV94p https://lnkd.in/dhjPvauf Karen Raubenheimer Yulu Liu Rachel Karasik Luca Nizzetto Dean Howell RICHARD THOMPSON OBE FRS Giulia Carcasci Helena Sophia Lindemann Azumi YOSHIOKA Pierre de LEPINAU Alexandre Meybeck Carmen Bullon Caro Teemu Viinikainen Simon Corbeil Kaveh Zahedi #PlasticsTreaty #VCoC #Agriculture #CircularEconomy #FAO #PlasticsInAgriculture

Managing U.S. plastic waste is estimated to cost $40 billion annually by 2040, with taxpayers currently footing the bill for roughly 92% of that total. Is it time to finally admit that our current "linear" economic model is simply too expensive to maintain? I am a vocal advocate for recycling, but recent modeling from The Pew Charitable Trusts and ICF suggests that recycling works best when it isn't the only tool in our belt. --> To make our recycling systems truly effective and economically viable, we need to look "upstream" at how products are designed before they ever reach a MRF. By shifting our focus toward design optimization and reuse alongside robust recycling, the potential for impact is massive; here are the numbers Pew expects is possible: 🟢 29% reduction in annual plastic packaging waste generation is possible by 2040 through a combined policy approach. 🟢 44% reduction in the mass of plastic packaging that must be landfilled or incinerated. 🟢 $1 billion+ in annual savings for taxpayers compared to the business-as-usual scenario. 🟢 22% national recycling rate can be achieved when we optimize packaging for the system, nearly quadrupling our current performance. Recycling is a critical "downstream" tool, but its success is often dictated by "upstream" decisions. When we phase out hard-to-recycle materials like PVC or PS and right-size our packaging, we create a cleaner, higher-value stream that our recycling infrastructure can actually handle profitably. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gxukTmXg #CircularEconomy #SustainablePackaging #Recycling #SystemsThinking #StrategicSustainability

The earth is at its tipping point on all fronts - emissions, water and even plastics. You name it, and there is evidence that we have screwed it. The OECD's latest Global Plastics Outlook projects #plastics use, #waste, and #environmental impacts, urging policies to address plastic pollution. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴: 1. Business-as-Usual Projections 📈 - Global plastics use may nearly triple by 2060 to 1231 million tonnes, driven by economic and population growth. - Plastic waste is projected to triple to 1014 million tonnes, with half landfilled, less than a fifth recycled. - Plastic leakage to the environment could double to 44 million tonnes yearly, harming ecosystems and human health. - Accumulated plastics in rivers and oceans are expected to triple to 493 million tonnes by 2060. - Greenhouse gas emissions from plastics may double, reaching 4.3 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2060. 2. Policy Scenarios ⚙️ - Regional Action scenario cuts plastic leakage by half, with recycled plastics reaching 29% market share by 2060. - Global Ambition scenario nearly eliminates leakage, with 60% waste recycled, 41% market share for secondary plastics. - Both scenarios show modest GDP impacts: 0.3% reduction for Regional Action, 0.8% for Global Ambition by 2060. 3. Policy Recommendations ♻️ - Restrain plastics demand using taxes and durable product designs to reduce environmental impacts across the lifecycle. - Boost recycling through recycled content targets and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for packaging and products. - Close leakage pathways by investing in waste collection systems and sanitary landfills to prevent environmental pollution. - Combine plastics and climate policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds in Global Ambition scenario. 4. Challenges and Considerations 🚨 - Non-OECD countries face higher costs, with Sub-Saharan Africa’s GDP dropping 2.8% in the Global Ambition scenario. - Plastic stocks in aquatic environments will grow, doubling in Global Ambition, requiring costly clean-up efforts. - Microplastic leakage will rise globally, needing targeted mitigation strategies to address increasing environmental and health risks.

The recycling of flexible plastics is one of the biggest challenges facing the plastics industry and the brands using these highly functional and cost effective materials. PPWR and strategically secure supply chains demand decisive action from both sectors. For the plastics industry and brand owners, this is where strategy must evolve from obligation to leadership. Meeting recycled content targets is no longer enough. The next phase requires a more deliberate, system-level approach: Authentic commitment to Design for Circularity for their products (not just recycling); Prioritizing investment in local collection and sorting infrastructure; Supporting the build-out of regional recycling capacity and using those resins regionally; Committing to the use of locally sourced recycled content wherever possible. This is not just about reducing emissions –– it is about creating stable, transparent and resilient supply chains for recycled materials, while actively reducing dependence on imported virgin resin. The shift from compliance-driven action needs to switch to active stewardship of the circular economy to create the global shift needed in the reducing and controlling the impact of plastics at the end of its first use cycle. https://lnkd.in/g-hXrzg7

♻️ Starting October 2025, a pilot campaign of single-use plastic ban will be officially deployed in some areas in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi – a strong step forward in Vietnam’s green transition! I’ve followed this regulation closely and recently listened to a podcast featuring business owners and policy experts reacting to this major change. Some vendors are racing to find alternatives, while others are struggling to adapt. The transition won’t be easy – but it’s necessary. 🌿 Vietnam currently generates around 1.8 million tons of plastic waste annually, and about 730,000 tons are mismanaged. Single-use items are a major contributor. This ban will apply to: ✅ Plastic bags, straws, and cutlery in wet markets, convenience stores, and food courts ✅ Styrofoam food containers in delivery and takeaway ✅ Packaging in hotels and tourism activities 🔍 Challenges? • Cost of eco-friendly alternatives • Supply chain readiness • Awareness among small businesses and consumers ✅ Opportunities? • A well-structured Deposit Return System (DRS) could divert ~77,000 tonnes of packaging waste, reduce 265,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions, and create 6,400 formal jobs annually • This ban may stimulate a surge in Vietnam-based sustainable packaging innovation, especially supporting SMEs and local producers. 💡 Europe has offered many inspiring examples: • France banned plastic packaging for fruits and vegetables in 2022 • Germany charges a mandatory fee on single-use items • Denmark led early with high taxes on plastic bags – and usage dropped by 66% . The EU expects a 50% drop in plastic litter by 2026 relative to 2020 levels • Models combining education, incentives, and regulation have proven most effective—beyond pure enforcement These bans didn’t happen overnight. They came with incentives, education campaigns, and support for small businesses. Vietnam can adopt the same approach for a smoother transition. ✅ Call to Action: What Comes Next for Vietnam? 1. Support small businesses with subsidies, technical guidance, and approved eco packaging suppliers 2. Drive public awareness campaigns to shift consumer norms 3. Invest in waste management and sorting infrastructure, especially in coastal and peri-urban zones 4. Pilot DRS programs, especially for beverage containers 5. Encourage public-private partnerships for packaging innovation, reuse systems, and policy evaluation 🌏 I hope this policy will not only reduce waste but inspire deeper behavior change. Let’s reimagine how we use, reuse, and reduce for a greener Vietnam. #Sustainability #PlasticBan #Vietnam2030 #CircularEconomy #GreenTransition #NetZero2050 #ESG

Recycling fails when materials are a mystery. Most plastic never becomes a new product—not because recyclers don’t try, but because the inputs are too complex and too opaque. Multi-layer films, unknown additives, legacy contaminants… 1️⃣ If you can’t identify it, you can’t sort it. 2️⃣ If you can’t sort it, you can’t cycle it at scale. The lever we’re underusing: radical disclosure and simplification. 🔹 Fewer resin types: interoperable polymers with clear end-of-life pathways. 🔹 Additive transparency: Full disclosure & phase-outs for hazardous chemistry. 🔹 Product passports: With composition, additives, and recycling/reuse routes. Why now? Breakthroughs in molecular identification and AI-driven sorting are proving what’s possible when we actually know what’s in our waste streams. But. Tech alone can’t fix design opacity. The fastest path to real circularity is to make materials less complex by design—and fewer by choice. What this looks like in practice: 🌀 Set absolute targets to reduce total plastic SKUs and resin families. 🌀 Publish additive inventories and commit to safer-chemistry roadmaps. 🌀 Require DPP's. Then tie them to EPR data and take-back logistics. We won’t recycle our way out of the plastics crisis. But we can disclose, design, and switch to fewer, safer materials—so advanced identification, sorting, and reuse systems can actually work. Transparency is not a nice-to-have; it’s the operating system for circularity. The future is molecule-level insight plus market-level standards—and it starts with telling the full story of what’s in our products.

If you make it, you must unmake it. We produce approximately 460 million tonnes of plastics a year, most with no credible exit strategy. It's time for a 'polymer antidote rule' where every polymer must ship with a proven, scalable end-of-life “antidote” - a disassembly route, a safe chemical breakdown or a guaranteed reuse loop. No antidote means no market access. Performance bonds, modulated EPR, Digital Product Passports, audited recovery at real-world scale. It's time the plastics industry stopped designing problems and started designing the solutions. Who could disagree with that? https://lnkd.in/ggxnwbd8